The LIbertarians had at least four people running. They only put one on the ballot, because Libertarians do not believe the government should be a part of ANY political party's election. Libertarians don't have any problem with political parties putting their own candidate (singular) on the ballot, what they oppose is the Government sponsoring party politics via the "primary" process.

Can you give me one good reason why the government should sponsor (private) party elections?

Brexit isn't the horrible choice the anti Brexit people want you to believe. It also isn't the Panacea that the Pro-Brexit people say it is.

It will have good bits, and bad bits, and in the end will mostly be a wash. Which is bad for all the people who want globalism touting it to be the cure all for all of man's ills.

Most of the idiots vote either (D) or (R), the people who know better don't vote for the status quo, expecting change, they actually vote for the real change.

Gary Johnson.

Perhaps you like the kind of Democracy that is in the PDRK, where the choices are made before the ballot box and people only affirm the one choice they actually have?

I guess to people like you, it doesn't matter that Trump defeated, at the Ballot box, against the machine of the GOP establishment, 15 (or so) other GOP opponents, securing his nomination via a democratic process, fair and square. I guess you'd rather have Hillary, who conspired with the DNC to anoint her with a crown, over Bernie Sanders.

Perhaps we just need to have the Political Elite's just appoint our leaders for us, since we are all a "basket of deplorables" and why isn't Hillary winning by 50% ??

Soros, the Convicted Felon, who made his fortune committing fraud and currency manipulation. Which is Ironic considering how the left tends to view places like Wall Street and its traders. Also Ironic is Hillary taking millions of dollars from Wall Street, and all those former "Occupy" people are still going to vote for her.

As opposed to fighting the American Elite by giving power to Hillary?

For every argument people have against Donald, the almost always equally fall on Hillary.

As opposed to Hillary who believes that ONLY she can fix it, but has a far worse record of breaking everything she touches?

Sorry, but Both suck, but Hillary sucks much worse, because she has a proven track record of breaking shit, and then lying about it. "WE didn't lose anyone in Libya" (yes, she actually said that). The big difference between Hillary and Donald is that with Donald, the press won't give him the same pass that they have already proven they'll give Hillary on every gaff, mistake, foible and .... "dehydration" event that she has.

1) She just called at least 25% of America (probably a lot more) a "Basket of Deplorables".
2) They said the same thing about Reagan. And that didn't turn out anywhere near as bad as all the leftwing insult hurlers said it would.
3) 90% alienation rate is probably highly exaggerated. But considering Chalk Marks counts "offense" these days, I'm okay with offending people. You know what happens when you're offended? Leprosy, you get leprosy. I can only imagine what happens when you alienate these people. Probably full blown AIDS or perhaps retroactive microcephaly on the victims.

You really should get a wider outlook on American Politics than whatever it is that you're digesting.

I find it kind of ironic, that the people who hate GWB the most are voting for the same person he is, Hillary. Which means, they support the same person GWB supports ... for president.

YOU really thing HRC is that much different than GWB?

You forgot "phobic".

If you are against anything they want, they call you ________-Phoboic

If you don't follow lockstep with their agenda, you're a bigot. See what the LGBT community did to Michelle Rodriguez .. the lgBt actress, when she didn't goosestep to their outrage at one of her movie roles.

Exalted Cyclops Robert Bird was Hillary's Mentor. If you want to point to racist KKK people, you might actually point to one that actually was a Racist KKK member. ;)

Hillary supports rioting BLM folk. Who beat up people that look like her (white), in order to get votes of the black people.

IF you want to talk about actual violence lets look it it.

BUT you'll no doubt say that those people advocating Riots and the killing of cops, white people and other things are not part of the Hillary Clinton campaign, and you might be correct, if ALL you look at is direct affiliation. However, when you see Hillary pandering (hot sauce) to the Black Community, and saying she support BLM (who was rioting, looting and possibly even killing each other when she said it) you can't unlink them. They are "together" in this.

AND it wasn't trump people assembled outside Hillary's campaign events attacking Hillary supporters, was it. It was BLM folk protesting the "racist" Trump.

Never mind that Hillary can't even get more than a few hundred people out to a rally, and has to call in BHO to rescue her failing campaign.

As bad as Trump is, Hillary is equal to, or even possibly worse than him. So, quit pretending one side is worse than the other, when it is VERY clear that neither of them are going to be good for our country. My suggestion is that you consider voting for Gary Johnson, even as a "wasted" vote, because the "Basket of deplorables" are those two running on the major party platforms.

There are two ways to look at this, technically and genetically. From a Technical point of view, he was marginally better off than the Natives, genetically not so much.

So, the only thing we need to fear are aliens with better weapons that we currently have. And our weapons, while seemingly nasty to us, are probabably like pop guns to any alien who could find us out.

Lets hope "To Serve Man" isn't a cookbook

You are "correct" for values of "income" that is taxed. The rich tend to not have "ordinary" income (Income tax purposes) and much of what they hold is in "Trusts" that are taxed differently.

All of which goes to what "definition" of is is. Income taxes are regressive, because the "Rich" do not have "income" the same way that I have income, and am taxed. They aren't paid out of a payroll, so all those additional payroll taxes aren't mentioned.

So, I stand on my case that taxes, all of them, are regressive. Just because you don't see it the way I do, doesn't mean I am wrong ;)